Submitted by user on
Study Name
Moving to Opportunity (MTO) Housing Vouchers for Use in Any Neighborhood Plus Mobility Counseling
Study Sharepoint ID
90004.02
Evaluation name
Moving to Opportunity
Strength of Evidence Tag
Reason for the Rating

This study received a low study quality rating because it is a high-attrition randomized controlled trial that does not adjust estimated impacts for potentially important differences between the intervention and comparison groups.

This study received a low study quality rating because it is a high-attrition randomized controlled trial that does not adjust estimated impacts for potentially important differences between the intervention and comparison groups.

Services
Populations targeted
Settings in which the intervention was studied

Subgroups

Subgroup data - Female
No
Subgroup data - Male
No
Subgroup data - White
No
Subgroup data - Black
No
Count age
0
Count Young Adults
0
Count Hard-to-employ
0
Count Disability
0
Count chronically ill
0
Count mentally ill
0
Count substance dependent
0
Count formerly incarcerated
0
Count Justice involved
0
Count limited work history
0
Count homeless
0
Count immigrants
0
Count refugees
0
Count veterans
0
Count female
0
Count Male
0
Count Any postsecondary education
0
Count With a high school diploma or GED
0
Count No high school diploma or GED
0
Count Married
0
Count Parents
0
Count Single Parents
0
Count Non-Custodial Parents
0
Count Employed
0
Count Self employed
0
Count Unemployed
0
Count Disconnected/discouraged workers
0
Count general low-income population
0
Count Very low income (as classified by the authors)
0
Count welfare population
0
Count long-term welfare recipients
0
Count Asian
0
Count Black or African American
0
Count Hispanic or Latino of any race
0
Count American Indian or Alaska Native
0
Count Pacific islander
0
Count White
0
Count White not Hispanic
0
Count More than one race
0
Count Unknown race
0
Count another race
0
Percent female
97.50
Percent Male
2.50
Percent With a high school diploma or GED
55.00
Percent Married
11.10
Percent Parents
100.00
Percent Employed
27.40
Percent Unemployed
72.60
Percent general low-income population
100.00
Percent Asian
1.60
Percent Black or African American
61.60
Percent Hispanic or Latino of any race
31.10
Percent American Indian or Alaska Native
0.30
Percent White not Hispanic
2.50
Percent another race
2.10
Mean age
33.50
Group formation formatted

Public housing authorities in each city advertised the MTO intervention to potentially eligible families. Families that expressed interest in participating were placed on a waiting list in each intervention site. Waiting list families then received additional information about the study through a series of group orientation sessions, and if still interested in participating, the head of household completed a screener survey and formally consented to participate. MTO administrators reviewed these screeners to identify families eligible for participation (those with at least one child younger than 18 who were also eligible for Section 8 housing vouchers). Eligible families subsequently enrolled in the study and were randomly assigned into one of three intervention conditions; this review focuses on those families randomly assigned to housing vouchers only and families randomly assigned to receiving no intervention services. The proportion of families randomly assigned across conditions changed during the intervention to increase take-up of housing vouchers, which was lower than initially projected. The analyses adjust for changes in the probability of random assignment over time, using sampling weights equal to the inverse of the probability of random assignment to the intervention condition at the time when a given participant was randomly assigned.

Study timing formatted

Families were randomly assigned between 1994 and 1997. The final evaluation collected data in 2007.

Study funding formatted

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development was the primary sponsor of the MTO evaluation.

Sample Characteristics

At the time of random assignment, all families in the study sample were eligible for Section 8 housing vouchers and had at least one child younger than 18. About 62 percent of the final evaluation sample was African American, and 31 percent was Hispanic or Latino of any race. Just 11 percent of sample members were married. Fifty-five percent of the baseline sample had at least a high school diploma or GED, although 73 percent were unemployed. Seventy-five percent of families received Aid to Families with Dependent Children/Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and 81 percent received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. The average total household income was $12,766 annually. Nearly all adult baseline survey respondents (98 percent) were female.

Implementing organization formatted

State public housing authorities

Program history

MTO began with the random assignment of the first intervention households in 1994. The program was authorized by the U.S. Congress in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992.

Treatment condition formatted

Between 1994 and 1998, MTO offered Section 8 housing vouchers to families with low incomes in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York who lived in public housing or private assisted housing projects in high-poverty neighborhoods (defined as census tracts with more than 40 percent of the population living below poverty) and who had at least one child younger than 18. Private assisted housing projects are rental housing built by private owners through federal programs that required them to price some units to be affordable to people with low incomes. The vouchers could be used without any geographical restriction. Intervention participants were required to observe Section 8 policies that limit the amount of time voucher recipients have to secure housing, require voucher recipients to contribute 30 percent of their adjusted income to rent, and prohibit illegal drug use or alcohol abuse.

Comparison condition formatted

Families with low incomes in the comparison condition were offered neither Section 8 housing vouchers for private housing in low-poverty neighborhoods nor counseling services or special housing search assistance (the latter was tested in a study reviewed separately by the Pathways Clearinghouse). Comparison group families were not prohibited from continuing to receive housing assistance for public or private assisted housing in high-poverty neighborhoods. Like families in the intervention condition, those in the comparison condition had at least one child younger than 18 when the intervention began.

Mandatory services formatted

None

Timing of study formatted

Families in the intervention condition who signed a lease [Editor: Correct as edited? The original read "...who leased-up"] (about 60 percent across sites) did so between December 1994 and March 1999. Program services were available throughout the intervention.

Program funding formatted

MTO was authorized by the U.S. Congress in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992.

Setting details formatted

The MTO demonstration took place in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York. Public housing authorities in each city provided Section 8 housing vouchers.

Secondary domains examined

Housing status; housing assistance; housing and neighborhood conditions and safety; adult physical and mental health outcomes; household income; food security

Earliest publication year
2003
Most recent publication year
2011
Manuscripts
Check edits flag
No
Primary Service
Housing
Enrollment Period
July 1994 through July 1998
Intervention Duration
0.00
Subgroup data - Hispanic
No